law of nature

last week i ordered c.s. lewis' book mere christianity. it came in the mail the other day and i've been reading it a bit, here and there. first of all, i have to say, the publishers did a great job with this book. it’s printed on rough, sand colored paper. the edges are not trimmed and it smells like wood. burnt wood. the front cover has a dark ink illustration of a path leading out of the woods. the book has an old world charm, reminds you of something you'd find in an ancient monastery somewhere. i like the book's design so much that frankly, it's been hard to read. i like to abuse books. hold them so far open that the binding is about to split, etc. but i've been handling this thing like it's a delicate artifact, making sure not to get it sweaty, or opening it too wide. so, props to the publishers at harper collins!

well, my first thoughts on mere christianity are that it is quite dense. this is definitely not an easy read. in fact, i often find myself re-reading several paragraphs trying to fully grasp what lewis is saying. it's a bit frustrating. yet, with all of its complicated metaphors, i can't help but think that he might be on to something. he describes this thing he calls, the "law of nature," as being a universal, innate, and unlearned ability in human beings to know the difference between right and wrong. he defends this idea by discussing some of its criticisms. for instance, couldn’t this law of nature, be a social convention? like something that is taught to us? he answers by comparing it to math. he says that math isn’t a human invention, although things like the multiplication table are. and a few pages of complicated analysis later, he concludes that, no, it can’t be a learned behavior. basically, in a nutshell, lewis is saying that math is present with or without us. two rocks sitting on the beach next to two other rocks, make four rocks. the rules and formulas that we have derived to understand this concept of 2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks are of no consequence to the rocks themselves. in other words, the law of nature is present with or without our attempts to make it more formulaic and understandable. i hope this is what he was trying to get at, at least. well, 3 chapters later, lewis is still defending this concept. he has not yet talked about god, or christianity, or anything of religious influence. he is definitely setting the stage for something big. not sure what it is yet. maybe, he is going to use this law of nature to defend the christian belief of adam and eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. or maybe he will simply be arguing that human beings will be judged according to their deeds, given that the law of nature excludes no one, christian or not. i'm not sure where this crazy man is going with any of this, but hopefully i'll find out in the coming few days.

interesting note, c.s. lewis was an atheist for a large portion of his life. i always find that christian authors, who weren't always believers, tend to have a very strong and compelling message in their works. i think it's because they appreciate the gift of faith more than a lot of people who were brought up christian (unfortunately). it's like discovering that you have a superpower and running in excitement to tell all your friends, who reply, "well yeah, duh. we all have 'em, didn’t you know?" since it’s a new and life changing discovery for you, you appreciate it so much more. and because it’s something amazing that you’ve gone most of your life without, you feel very passionate about sharing it with others.

by the way, check out this sculpture. my fist, pounding its way out of the rock!